Science Vs Religion? Really?

Are we still to believe that the whole creation vs evolution debate is a matter of science vs religion? I would say no, its a matter of science vs science, theism vs atheism.For long people have tried to give the impression that the more learned you are the more you will believe in evolution. We now know that we have highly educated and academically decorated people on either side of the divide. Scientists debating with scientists on the issue of origins. Religion has nothing with it except the fact that if the evidence points to it then some are willing to break the status qou and follow it wherever it leads.How many times have you seen evolutionist play propaganda by using phrases like "The whole scientific community.." giving the impression that scientists unanimously agree evolution is a fact?Religion is listed as non-scientific and non-progressive. To cut the long story short and leave time for debate, why do we still allow people to fool us by saying its science vs religion?Science vs science i say!

I'd claim its interpretation of the evidence vs interpretation of the evidence

Since being science implies experimentation, and there is no experimentation to verify Evolution or Design, both are based on observation of the same evidence and then infered from ones own views. However there is one difference, design has the upper hand in terms of information and its occurence in life. This pretty much lays waste to almost any claim about natural causation since nature itself cannot produce information in code (and the systems of its comprehension), without some form of intelligent agent.

Are we still to believe that the whole creation vs evolution debate is a matter of science vs religion? I would say no, its a matter of science vs science, theism vs atheism.For long people have tried to give the impression that the more learned you are the more you will believe in evolution. We now know that we have highly educated and academically decorated people on either side of the divide. Scientists debating with scientists on the issue of origins. Religion has nothing with it except the fact that if the evidence points to it then some are willing to break the status qou and follow it wherever it leads.How many times have you seen evolutionist play propaganda by using phrases like "The whole scientific community.." giving the impression that scientists unanimously agree evolution is a fact?Religion is listed as non-scientific and non-progressive. To cut the long story short and leave time for debate, why do we still allow people to fool us by saying its science vs religion?Science vs science i say!

The creationism vs evolution debate is not science versus science, it's fundamentalism (biblical literalism) versus... everything else. If you only ask christian biologists if they accept evolution or reject so-called "creation science" the statistical difference between the answers of atheist scientists, muslim scientists, jewish scientists etc will be around a tenth of one percent. Christian biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, geologists etc are in overwhelming agreement with everybody else on subjects like evolution and the age of the earth.

This claim that scientists are divided more or less equally among creationists and supporters of evolution is misleading, the only "scientists" that largely support creationism a ) do so for religious reasons, not scientific ones, and b ) are experts in fields unrelated to earth and life science.

I'd claim its interpretation of the evidence vs interpretation of the evidence

Since being science implies experimentation, and there is no experimentation to verify Evolution or Design, both are based on observation of the same evidence and then infered from ones own views. However there is one difference, design has the upper hand in terms of information and its occurence in life. This pretty much lays waste to almost any claim about natural causation since nature itself cannot produce information in code (and the systems of its comprehension), without some form of intelligent agent.

No there is lots of experimental evidence for evolution. Anyone in this forum can google "evolution experiment" and find lots of examples. Or google "transitional form" and click the image tabs for lots of pictures of what creationists claim do not exist. Or you could just read the responses when you claim such things do not exist instead of going "la la la la I can't hear you" and then repeating the claim that none exist.

It's also worth mentioning... again, since nobody responded the last several times, that there is no such thing as creation "science". In other words an experiment or prediction which, if wrong, has the potential to disprove the idea that life was created. I've asked for a single example of one and been ignored several times. And I've given examples of evolutionary experiments and predictions several times, followed by people like gilbo12345 here just refusing to look at them and repeating the claim that none exist.

No there is lots of experimental evidence for evolution. Anyone in this forum can google "evolution experiment" and find lots of examples. Or google "transitional form" and click the image tabs for lots of pictures of what creationists claim do not exist. Or you could just read the responses when you claim such things do not exist instead of going "la la la la I can't hear you" and then repeating the claim that none exist.

How about you give the examples rather than say "go look" since doing so is intellectually dishonest as you are making claims without said evidence, I bet that none of these so called "evidences" are actual evidence as per the scientific method.

Additionally was I going "la la la la la I can't hear you"? Please demonstrate a quote otherwise I ask you to retract such slander

Every example I have seen I have replied to and debunked... unless it is you who is not listening to the rebuttals of the so called "evidences"

I'd claim its interpretation of the evidence vs interpretation of the evidence

Since being science implies experimentation, and there is no experimentation to verify Evolution or Design, both are based on observation of the same evidence and then infered from ones own views. However there is one difference, design has the upper hand in terms of information and its occurence in life. This pretty much lays waste to almost any claim about natural causation since nature itself cannot produce information in code (and the systems of its comprehension), without some form of intelligent agent.

Makes lots of sense. Its just that there has been lots of campaign against creationists, one of the cited reasons being they are not scientists. I like that you have brought more clarity for surely no one disputes the available data but the interpretation of the same differs. What remains is for us to convince people that evolution is based on faith more than they want to admit.

Makes lots of sense. Its just that there has been lots of campaign against creationists, one of the cited reasons being they are not scientists. I like that you have brought more clarity for surely no one disputes the available data but the interpretation of the same differs. What remains is for us to convince people that evolution is based on faith more than they want to admit.

Thanks, we'll drag them to that realisation, kicking and screaming if need be

Makes lots of sense. Its just that there has been lots of campaign against creationists, one of the cited reasons being they are not scientists. I like that you have brought more clarity for surely no one disputes the available data but the interpretation of the same differs. What remains is for us to convince people that evolution is based on faith more than they want to admit.

As I've said, this is not true, creationists just ignore (or are ignorant of) the actual evidence.